In other words, he went through the established legal means, was informed of a situation where someone felt unduly harmed, and did his level best to resolve the situation quickly and fairly. All in all, I like this guy -- asserting his rights without being a douche about it.
One of the really fucked-up things about this is that she claims on her blog that this is evidence he doesn't actually own the copyright and is part of some vast conspiracy to silence her for whatever political whackjobbery it is she supports.
Which will be right after we ban lobbying and right before we implement punitive measures for such actions.
I'm pretty sure the torches and pitchforks it'll take to implement the above changes would qualify as a preceding form of it being a bad idea for them. Those changes would never see the light of day without something big at stake for said pols.
That's a word which has been used for a very long time, and does not in any way imply there was no fault. While it may lessen the impact of the concept, it's not really that much different than referring to a public toilet as a "bathroom" or "restroom." It is a common colloquial term, well-understood within this context (at least in the US). The cause for its use is much more likely to be as a result of the editor in question being a product of their culture than an actual intent to politicize the story.
You don't know innocence or guilt until a person is tried
Well, actually you can, as much as anyone can "know" anything, anyway. The legal system allows for a very specific process which has specific outcomes based on its rules. You cannot be declared guilty legally without going through that process, even if it otherwise irrefutably known by one or more people that you did, in fact, commit whatever act of which you have been accused.
Granted, I doubt in this particular case the couple actually did know his girlfriend was completely without knowledge of the circumstances, though any lawyer worth their salt should have advised them their lawsuit was completely baseless. Absent some serious edge-case circumstances, there is absolutely no way you can legitimately argue a case of gross negligence from a set of asynchronous communications. It would require very specific conditional knowledge and the burden of proof would be very high indeed. From the article, it appears more as if the lawsuit was to send a message. Whether that's an abuse of process or not I'll leave for another time.
There is no copyright on a broadcast in its entirety though. The show is owned by whatever company owns it and the commercials are usually owned by a completely separate entity. If either were being changed there might be a case of profiting from creating a derivative work. However, neither item is modified. One wholely-owned work is omitted in its entirety. There's a huge difference.
If I package and sell 2 books, each by a different author, I have no right to complain if someone starts a company designed to separate them and throw one away before delivering it to their customers. Unless and until commercials become integrated with a show, and thus qualify as part of a larger work of copyright, removing them is not modifying a copyrighted work.
Your comments about product deletion and insertion fully apply though. Such behavior is clearly modification to copyrighted works.
While that is almost without doubt the largest current reason, most countries don't like letting businesses arbitrarily refuse service. In practice it almost always requires cause, and the larger the business the less likely refusal without cause is to go unnoticed (and unpunished).
After a quick perusal, it appears that in this case refusal to deal would run afoul of laws in the US, Australia, and the UK. In the US, it appears there are no (or limited) exceptions to the Sherman Act, which prevents a supplier from dealing selectively. In the latter two cases, it's because Apple is requesting supply in order to make products which compete with products Samsung makes, and so would be one of the cases in which refusal to deal is explicitly disallowed.
As I suspected, even without contracts to supply parts Samsung could not realistically refuse to renegotiate a supply contract with Apple.
Most of it is anecdotal, because it is very difficult to get public access to the inside disciplinary and investigatory process for corruption in most cases. Police guilds fight transparency very hard, at least in every place I've ever lived. It is currently happening in the city I now live in, as the result of a number of recent police killings, one of which required the intervention of Federal prosecutors because the city attorney involved in the investigation materially obstructed the release of video which ended up sending an officer to prison.
In reality, when a corrupt cop gets exposed, most of the time it doesn't make the news in a big way. So it's not surprising that those people who are only looking for corruption, only find that.
If this is true, it doesn't help your assertion that Google is an easy method for discovering cases of corruption being exposed by police officers who become aware of it. Again, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but arguing with someone for using over-expansive language should involve not doing such things yourself if you wish to appear consistent.
Of course you'll find corruption if you're looking for corruption. It'll happen whether you're pro-police only looking for cases where a cop turned in another cop and the good guys won, or anti-police looking for cases where cops covered up malfeasance within their (or another's) department, or neutral and looking for all cases without regard to who uncovered it and how the situation turned out.
Most of the low-hanging fruit on cops exposing corruption regards police in countries other than the US or police who have, in fact, had their careers and/or lives ruined as a result of their whistleblowing.
The fact is, cops who risk ruining their careers and/or lives are a tiny minority. Finding good examples is not easy. It's a search for a needle in a haystack. So while I technically agree when you disagree with the statement that all cops are corrupt, it is only that: a technicality. The things which are easy to find are almost universally gross outliers in a sea of "doesn't happen like that in real life."
Ah, you're conflating conversing on particular subjects with conversing on any subject.
There are certain factual things which, absent a functional understanding of those facts, leads to making conversation on certain subjects completely meaningless. Failing to understand that is your problem, not mine.
There are fundamentals to maintaining specific types of organizations. My statement applies just as well as it would if the person had claimed the mafia could be sustained by butterflies and unicorns. You're free to continue to believe it was a baseless error in logic though. I don't really care.
That is true. A tax on pot would definitely provide a vast surplus in treatment costs for drugs. I was thinking more in terms of what we have now (something like 3/4 of all vehicular injuries involve alcohol, plus fetal alcohol syndrome over the life of the child, plus the cost of psychological, social, and economic treatment for the various harms caused by its availability) likely far outweighs what is made in taxes.
A tax on marijuana would definitely work to cover that shortfall without adding much to the burden.
I'm not an expert on business law, but I'm pretty sure there are laws in place in most countries preventing exactly that from happening. This isn't to say I support them being unable to tell Apple to fuck off arbitrarily, but I'm thinking that's not exactly an option for them.
Yup. Idealist leaders are usually easy to manipulate (either directly or indirectly, depending on their particular brand) so they can't keep a consolidated power base for long. It's so much easier to gain power if you're willing and able to break legs and crack skulls. That's why real communism will never, ever work on a large scale.
It's too bad this was posted anonymously. It addresses one of the fundamental problems with economic and social justice arguments: what are the foundational definitions and assumptions of the argument to begin with?
People argue generally because they have different ideas of what equality and "fair share" mean. Since those are highly subjective ideas, it can be argued that everyone is "right." Being right in that context is meaningless though, and those people frequently ignore the problems that occur when they are unable to compromise on the dogma of their own ideas. They're "right," after all, so why should they have to compromise?
And that would have been better had it happened that way. Instead, we have people who have tortured the document to mean the opposite of what it originally meant in some cases, done up in such a way because it was expedient. The precedent has been set that the Constitution is not so much a set of rules, but rather "guidelines" to be dispensed with when they are inconvenient.
Tearing it up and starting again would at least have a veneer of legitimacy, whereas the current process doesn't have even that.
Does the tax on alcohol, a perfectly legal substance, come anywhere near paying for the health problems it causes?
More than likely not even close (it would be monstrously difficult to actually quantify the cost), but the economic and societal cost of its continued illegality were crystal clear.
It's too bad the Supreme Court decided Congress can regulate items which don't impact interstate commerce because their lack of impact is an impact by its absence (they are masters at torturing logic).
The Constitution used to treat Congressional authority as untrusted, so the permissions were set to allow, deny. The Supreme Court has since reversed that, so any crap coming out of Congress makes it through unless it clearly and explicitly is disallowed. Even then it may be packaged in such a way that it can wreak havoc for years before being contained.
Maintaining huge criminal enterprises requires a lot more cash than can come from robbing people and houses. They can only exist where large black markets exist. The only markets they will move on to are other existing black markets. If you believe otherwise, there's not much point in conversing with you on the subject.
Step up when bad cops do bad things and maybe people will respect good cops more. Until then, you can continue to expect this sort of opinion of you profession in general.
Even if you're an otherwise good cop, unless you're willing to out bad cops you are the problem.
I was making a joke about the people who actually are elected. It had nothing to do with Penguisto's comment, even if your reply did. Voting for guy X who has experience in an actual practical field, regardless of his judgment, vs (in contrast to, rather than, etc) all the other choices (making an obviously over-broad statement) who have no experience in a useful field and who lack good judgment.
It wasn't something intended to require in-depth analysis... or any analysis, really.
Just like Apple and "using a touchscreen." Microsoft's next course will be "using a gesture-tracking interface." As a bonus though, once Microsoft plays that one out it'll be hard for a future company to use the "using a holographic interface" line.
Someone seriously trying to astroturf would do the same as someone attempting to troll successfully: neither actually wishes to be detected. Those who are obvious about engaging in either action aren't doing it correctly.
As opposed to expertise in almost nothing except lying, and not having good judgment, which is what we have in the majority of elected officials currently.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, he went through the established legal means, was informed of a situation where someone felt unduly harmed, and did his level best to resolve the situation quickly and fairly. All in all, I like this guy -- asserting his rights without being a douche about it.
One of the really fucked-up things about this is that she claims on her blog that this is evidence he doesn't actually own the copyright and is part of some vast conspiracy to silence her for whatever political whackjobbery it is she supports.
Which will be right after we ban lobbying and right before we implement punitive measures for such actions.
I'm pretty sure the torches and pitchforks it'll take to implement the above changes would qualify as a preceding form of it being a bad idea for them. Those changes would never see the light of day without something big at stake for said pols.
Eh, given how hard it is to actually change the system, maybe it's easier to just drain it dry. :)
That's a word which has been used for a very long time, and does not in any way imply there was no fault. While it may lessen the impact of the concept, it's not really that much different than referring to a public toilet as a "bathroom" or "restroom." It is a common colloquial term, well-understood within this context (at least in the US). The cause for its use is much more likely to be as a result of the editor in question being a product of their culture than an actual intent to politicize the story.
to sue whomever their lawyer says they should name in the suit
If this was their lawyer's suggestion, they should actually be suing him for legal malpractice.
You don't know innocence or guilt until a person is tried
Well, actually you can, as much as anyone can "know" anything, anyway. The legal system allows for a very specific process which has specific outcomes based on its rules. You cannot be declared guilty legally without going through that process, even if it otherwise irrefutably known by one or more people that you did, in fact, commit whatever act of which you have been accused.
Granted, I doubt in this particular case the couple actually did know his girlfriend was completely without knowledge of the circumstances, though any lawyer worth their salt should have advised them their lawsuit was completely baseless. Absent some serious edge-case circumstances, there is absolutely no way you can legitimately argue a case of gross negligence from a set of asynchronous communications. It would require very specific conditional knowledge and the burden of proof would be very high indeed. From the article, it appears more as if the lawsuit was to send a message. Whether that's an abuse of process or not I'll leave for another time.
It's the plural of the Latin 2nd declension noun "virius," which means "One who does not understand Latin."
There is no copyright on a broadcast in its entirety though. The show is owned by whatever company owns it and the commercials are usually owned by a completely separate entity. If either were being changed there might be a case of profiting from creating a derivative work. However, neither item is modified. One wholely-owned work is omitted in its entirety. There's a huge difference.
If I package and sell 2 books, each by a different author, I have no right to complain if someone starts a company designed to separate them and throw one away before delivering it to their customers. Unless and until commercials become integrated with a show, and thus qualify as part of a larger work of copyright, removing them is not modifying a copyrighted work.
Your comments about product deletion and insertion fully apply though. Such behavior is clearly modification to copyrighted works.
While that is almost without doubt the largest current reason, most countries don't like letting businesses arbitrarily refuse service. In practice it almost always requires cause, and the larger the business the less likely refusal without cause is to go unnoticed (and unpunished).
After a quick perusal, it appears that in this case refusal to deal would run afoul of laws in the US, Australia, and the UK. In the US, it appears there are no (or limited) exceptions to the Sherman Act, which prevents a supplier from dealing selectively. In the latter two cases, it's because Apple is requesting supply in order to make products which compete with products Samsung makes, and so would be one of the cases in which refusal to deal is explicitly disallowed.
As I suspected, even without contracts to supply parts Samsung could not realistically refuse to renegotiate a supply contract with Apple.
Most of it is anecdotal, because it is very difficult to get public access to the inside disciplinary and investigatory process for corruption in most cases. Police guilds fight transparency very hard, at least in every place I've ever lived. It is currently happening in the city I now live in, as the result of a number of recent police killings, one of which required the intervention of Federal prosecutors because the city attorney involved in the investigation materially obstructed the release of video which ended up sending an officer to prison.
In reality, when a corrupt cop gets exposed, most of the time it doesn't make the news in a big way. So it's not surprising that those people who are only looking for corruption, only find that.
If this is true, it doesn't help your assertion that Google is an easy method for discovering cases of corruption being exposed by police officers who become aware of it. Again, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but arguing with someone for using over-expansive language should involve not doing such things yourself if you wish to appear consistent.
Of course you'll find corruption if you're looking for corruption. It'll happen whether you're pro-police only looking for cases where a cop turned in another cop and the good guys won, or anti-police looking for cases where cops covered up malfeasance within their (or another's) department, or neutral and looking for all cases without regard to who uncovered it and how the situation turned out.
Most of the low-hanging fruit on cops exposing corruption regards police in countries other than the US or police who have, in fact, had their careers and/or lives ruined as a result of their whistleblowing.
The fact is, cops who risk ruining their careers and/or lives are a tiny minority. Finding good examples is not easy. It's a search for a needle in a haystack. So while I technically agree when you disagree with the statement that all cops are corrupt, it is only that: a technicality. The things which are easy to find are almost universally gross outliers in a sea of "doesn't happen like that in real life."
Ah, you're conflating conversing on particular subjects with conversing on any subject.
There are certain factual things which, absent a functional understanding of those facts, leads to making conversation on certain subjects completely meaningless. Failing to understand that is your problem, not mine.
There are fundamentals to maintaining specific types of organizations. My statement applies just as well as it would if the person had claimed the mafia could be sustained by butterflies and unicorns. You're free to continue to believe it was a baseless error in logic though. I don't really care.
That is true. A tax on pot would definitely provide a vast surplus in treatment costs for drugs. I was thinking more in terms of what we have now (something like 3/4 of all vehicular injuries involve alcohol, plus fetal alcohol syndrome over the life of the child, plus the cost of psychological, social, and economic treatment for the various harms caused by its availability) likely far outweighs what is made in taxes.
A tax on marijuana would definitely work to cover that shortfall without adding much to the burden.
I'm not an expert on business law, but I'm pretty sure there are laws in place in most countries preventing exactly that from happening. This isn't to say I support them being unable to tell Apple to fuck off arbitrarily, but I'm thinking that's not exactly an option for them.
Yup. Idealist leaders are usually easy to manipulate (either directly or indirectly, depending on their particular brand) so they can't keep a consolidated power base for long. It's so much easier to gain power if you're willing and able to break legs and crack skulls. That's why real communism will never, ever work on a large scale.
I thought most media outlets were "wind farms" though...
It's too bad this was posted anonymously. It addresses one of the fundamental problems with economic and social justice arguments: what are the foundational definitions and assumptions of the argument to begin with?
People argue generally because they have different ideas of what equality and "fair share" mean. Since those are highly subjective ideas, it can be argued that everyone is "right." Being right in that context is meaningless though, and those people frequently ignore the problems that occur when they are unable to compromise on the dogma of their own ideas. They're "right," after all, so why should they have to compromise?
And that would have been better had it happened that way. Instead, we have people who have tortured the document to mean the opposite of what it originally meant in some cases, done up in such a way because it was expedient. The precedent has been set that the Constitution is not so much a set of rules, but rather "guidelines" to be dispensed with when they are inconvenient.
Tearing it up and starting again would at least have a veneer of legitimacy, whereas the current process doesn't have even that.
Does the tax on alcohol, a perfectly legal substance, come anywhere near paying for the health problems it causes?
More than likely not even close (it would be monstrously difficult to actually quantify the cost), but the economic and societal cost of its continued illegality were crystal clear.
It's too bad the Supreme Court decided Congress can regulate items which don't impact interstate commerce because their lack of impact is an impact by its absence (they are masters at torturing logic).
The Constitution used to treat Congressional authority as untrusted, so the permissions were set to allow, deny. The Supreme Court has since reversed that, so any crap coming out of Congress makes it through unless it clearly and explicitly is disallowed. Even then it may be packaged in such a way that it can wreak havoc for years before being contained.
Maintaining huge criminal enterprises requires a lot more cash than can come from robbing people and houses. They can only exist where large black markets exist. The only markets they will move on to are other existing black markets. If you believe otherwise, there's not much point in conversing with you on the subject.
Step up when bad cops do bad things and maybe people will respect good cops more. Until then, you can continue to expect this sort of opinion of you profession in general.
Even if you're an otherwise good cop, unless you're willing to out bad cops you are the problem.
I was making a joke about the people who actually are elected. It had nothing to do with Penguisto's comment, even if your reply did. Voting for guy X who has experience in an actual practical field, regardless of his judgment, vs (in contrast to, rather than, etc) all the other choices (making an obviously over-broad statement) who have no experience in a useful field and who lack good judgment.
It wasn't something intended to require in-depth analysis ... or any analysis, really.
Just like Apple and "using a touchscreen." Microsoft's next course will be "using a gesture-tracking interface." As a bonus though, once Microsoft plays that one out it'll be hard for a future company to use the "using a holographic interface" line.
Someone seriously trying to astroturf would do the same as someone attempting to troll successfully: neither actually wishes to be detected. Those who are obvious about engaging in either action aren't doing it correctly.
As opposed to expertise in almost nothing except lying, and not having good judgment, which is what we have in the majority of elected officials currently.